Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Andreessen on Crypto

marginalrevolution.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 110 posts

Re: Andreessen on Crypto

#101

Post by lottin »

lowkey wrote: post #98
lottin wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, none of the points addresses the question. How is > it works 24/7 and never takes a bank holiday a problem? That's not a problem. That's a feature of some system. And what "distributed consensus" has to do with it is even more mysterious.

I see you can cherry-pick but can you address the many many other valid points I raised? Also, explain how a bank that is only open during banking hours say 8 hours/5 days per week/250 days per year is better for consumers than a system open 24 hours/7 days per week/365 days per year. How is that a feature for the consumer?

None of the points are examples of problems that are solved by a distributed consensus. I could go over the points one by one, but that doesn't strike me as a productive use of my time.

Re: Andreessen on Crypto

#102

Post by lowkey »

lottin wrote: post #101
lowkey wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see you can cherry-pick but can you address the many many other valid points I raised? Also, explain how a bank that is only open during banking hours say 8 hours/5 days per week/250 days per year is better for consumers than a system open 24 hours/7 days per week/365 days per year. How is that a feature for the consumer?

None of the points are examples of problems that are solved by a distributed consensus. I could go over the points one by one, but that doesn't strike me as a productive use of my time.

I agree that we disagree. We are clearly talking past one another and are unlikely to see eye to eye so best we end things here.

Re: Andreessen on Crypto

#103

Post by dcolkitt »

ipython wrote: post #95
dcolkitt wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A real life human still has to decide about real life information to put on the chain, but the point is we’re now globally unconstrained about who we choose to arbitrate that information. That allows for an intense global competition for trustworthy and reliable sources. Say we enter a weather derivative contract that pays off based on total rainfall. If there’s a dispute, instead of a two-bit local judge playing ama…

But how does that change anything? I don’t like the output of the smart contract, so I sue accuweather, the smart contract owner, and anyone else involved in the transaction. Some “two bit” judge then adjudicates the dispute after all. What if the judge rules that accuweather’s record is incorrect? All I see is that now I have yet another party to trust: whomever wrote the smart contract. Why should I trust him/her?…

The judge has no say. The smart contract is collateralized ahead of time. Both parties lock sufficient value in the contract to make sure that the payment can be made good. After the value is locked in the contract, there's nothing any fiat judge on Earth can do to reverse the smart contract, short of shutting down the entire blockchain.

I agree that you have to trust the software underlying the contract. But it's highly likely that you'll use an open standard that's battle tested across time. Typically it's much easier to develop trust in software than it is institutions. Every day you trust your life, privacy and money to open software standards across a wide variety of contexts.

Re: Andreessen on Crypto

#104

Post by SuoDuanDao »

lottin wrote: post #63
SuoDuanDao wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you don't have to trust the vendor, the bank, or the social media company.

So cryptocurrencies allow you to buy something from someone you don't trust? How does that work?

For a transaction like that up to now, you'd need someone you both trust to hold the payment in escrow until the transaction clears. Crypto automates the job of the trusted third party because you can both audit the code and predict what will happen.

Re: Andreessen on Crypto

#105

Post by CyberDildonics »

arcturus17 wrote: post #100
CyberDildonics wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might feel like this but it is anything but true. Prodigy was available in the early 90s and the age of 286 computers. AOL and compuserve were available very early too and for years their uses were email, online encyclopedias, looking up jpegs and eventually chat rooms. Lots of people saw no need for it in the dialup days. It took a decade for the first cable connections to become available. Right now cryptocurren…

> It might feel like this but it is anything but true. Prodigy was available in the early 90s and the age of 286 computers. Amazon was launched in 94. My dad was buying books from Barnes and Noble and Amazon and having them sent internationally around 96. By the end of the 90s the internet had 250M users carrying out all kinds of activities, including commercial. The comparison with crypto just does not stand its gro…

8 years ago I was buying from tigerdirect, newegg and overstock. Bitcoin being crippled to only a few transactions per second for the entire world set things back a good amount which was probably a big part of the point in doing it.

https://markets.businessinsider.com/currencies/news/crypto-u...

Re: Andreessen on Crypto

#106

Post by lottin »

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #104
lottin wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So cryptocurrencies allow you to buy something from someone you don't trust? How does that work?

For a transaction like that up to now, you'd need someone you both trust to hold the payment in escrow until the transaction clears. Crypto automates the job of the trusted third party because you can both audit the code and predict what will happen.

The code doesn't know whether the terms of the agreement have been fulfilled.

Re: Andreessen on Crypto

#107

Post by ipython »

dcolkitt wrote: post #103
ipython wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But how does that change anything? I don’t like the output of the smart contract, so I sue accuweather, the smart contract owner, and anyone else involved in the transaction. Some “two bit” judge then adjudicates the dispute after all. What if the judge rules that accuweather’s record is incorrect? All I see is that now I have yet another party to trust: whomever wrote the smart contract. Why should I trust him/her?…

The judge has no say. The smart contract is collateralized ahead of time. Both parties lock sufficient value in the contract to make sure that the payment can be made good. After the value is locked in the contract, there's nothing any fiat judge on Earth can do to reverse the smart contract, short of shutting down the entire blockchain. I agree that you have to trust the software underlying the contract. But it's hi…

What software do I trust my life and money to which does not give me legal recourse if I encounter an issue?

Re: Andreessen on Crypto

#108

Post by heyidioturwrong »

dandanua wrote: post #28

> we can now, in theory, build Internet native contracts, loans, insurance, title to real world assets, unique digital goods (known as non-fungible tokens or NFTs), online corporate structures (such as digital autonomous organizations or DAOs), and on and on. I'm so tired of this stupid mantra that crypto-addicts keep repeating. 1. You can't put real world events into a blockchain in a decentralized manner. In no fck…

You talk very confidently about something you don't seem to know much about.

1. >You can't put real world events on blockchain

Yes you absolutely can, look into decentralized oracle projects like Chainlink or Augur for more info.

2. Loans already exist fully onchain, look into Aave and Compound. Loans are overcollatoralized so 'credit' of address doesn't matter. They haven't figured out undercollatoralized loans yet, but it's just a matter of time before we get propor decentralized identity, which will open opportunities for credit creation on chain.

3. As for titles to realestate, its just a matter of time before goverments recognize deeds held on chain as legitimate, and then that problem is solved.

Re: Andreessen on Crypto

#109

Post by techbrobane »

lr1970 wrote: post #65
adpirz wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m glad I’m not the only one who thought that seemed exactly backwards. Even with a cursory understanding of history, the extreme right wing regimes are considered fascist, aka extremely top down. Considering the best faith argument here, I’m guessing he’s seeing the “right wing” being pro business as opposed to a pro government “left”, and in that view, business is considered “bottom up”. As you alluded to, though,…

> Even with a cursory understanding of history, the extreme right wing regimes are considered fascist, aka extremely top down. IMHO the political spectrum has a circular topology where extreme left and extreme right merge into one point. As an illustration, consider Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union: * Extremely brutal top-down dictatorship. * Suppression of all dissent by means of secrete police (Gestapo vs…

You're describing authoritarianism which is inherently right-wing. Both Hitler and Stalin were anti-democratic right-wingers.

The left-wing has always been anti-authoritarian.

A better comparison would be like Hitler versus Emma Goldman.

Re: Andreessen on Crypto

#110

Post by techbrobane »

captn3m0 wrote: post #87
phpsuks wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the way Crypto bulls sell this analogy is flawed. Internet had no competition from any other industry. It was nothing like anything that ever existed. In terms of Internet's development itself, we went from dial up to optical fibers. People in 21st century who use internet have no idea about pains of dial up connection. Crypto is replacing something that has existed for centuries - the financial system. The f…

The mobile phone industry was also deeply entrenched back in 2007, it still got disrupted wildly within a few years with the iPhone. If Crypto is so revolutionary, it should have resulted in radical changes within the entrenched financial industry. All we've seen is regression (Stripe supported bitcoins from 2014[0]-2018[1] for eg). [0]: https://stripe.com/blog/bitcoin-the-stripe-perspective [1]: https://stripe.com/b…

>All we've seen is regression

That's what happens when you only look at Stripe. smh.

Pretty sure every major financial institution is buying crypto because it's obviously superior to the dying and corrupt printer and fax system.

Post reply on HN